Ravikindi Lakshminarayana vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition with specific directions. It held that the seized stock and the vehicle should be released to the petitioner upon furnishing security. For the stock, security equivalent to its value in the form of immovable property (self or third party) is to be furnished to the satisfaction of the concerned authority. For the vehicle, separate security, equivalent to its value, in the form of immovable property (personal or third party) is to be furnished, along with an undertaking not to alienate or charge the property pending proceedings under Section 6-A of the E.C. Act. The concerned authorities are directed to intimate the acceptance of security and undertakings to the District Registrar/Sub-Registrar for their records. The Court did not decide the legality of the seizure or the impugned orders on merits but provided interim relief.

Facts

The petitioner, Ravikindi Lakshminarayana, a rice businessman, filed a writ petition challenging the seizure of 184.00 Qtls of PDS rice and a lorry (AP16 TW 6324) by the 3rd respondent. This rice was part of a larger stock (200 Qtls and 100 Qtls) previously seized in 2015, confiscated, but later ordered to be released by the Collector (CS), Prakasam District, on 06.08.2024. The petitioner sold 184 Qtls of this released stock, issuing a bill on 06.11.2024. While transporting this quantity, it was seized again. The petitioner's request for release was rejected by the 2nd respondent on 30.12.2024, who also authorized disposal through public auction. The petitioner argues this action is illegal and arbitrary, violating constitutional rights and the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

Key Issues

1. Whether the seizure of 184.00 Qtls of PDS rice and the lorry bearing No.AP16 TW 6324 by the 3rd respondent, and the subsequent order by the 2nd respondent authorizing disposal through public auction and refusing release, are illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and the Essential Commodities Act, 1955? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contends that the seized rice was released to him by the Collector (CS) based on prior court orders. He argues that the requirement for specific documents like FRK invoices, FSSAI licenses, and blending unit details, as cited by the respondents, is irrelevant as he is seeking the release of PDS rice previously seized and then released, not newly procured or blended rice. The impugned orders were passed solely on this non-applicable ground. Respondent's arguments: The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, based on written instructions, contended that the petitioner failed to produce a way bill and sought time to file a counter-affidavit. Later, they submitted that if the petitioner furnished security for interim custody, an appropriate order could be passed.